4 ms·
Yes. It's also old news. The new news here is that FBI used regular warrants to infect everyone who visited a certain website with malware, which I think is ine
by higherpurpose 12y ago
Yes. It's also old news. The new news here is that FBI used regular warrants to infect everyone who visited a certain website with malware, which I think is inexcusable under the 4th amendment - and common sense.
- adestefan 12y agoThat's debatable.
- mike_hearn 12y agoHighly debatable. As pointed out in the comments of the article, the FBI would not require a special warrant to watch people going in and out of a crack house.
- delucain 12y agoBut this isn't watching them going in and out of a crack house. This is watching all their movements after going in and out of a crack house. Still debatable, but I think your analogy didn't show how broad the scope of this would be.
- justizin 12y agoand possibly after pulling into the driveway of a crackhouse for a three-point turnaround.
- x0x0 12y agoIf visiting the site itself is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing -- like child porn -- I disagree. In the case Silk Road, I agree: users could merely be motivated by curiosity and therefore browsing isn't on its face a crime.
- centizen 12y agoWhat about misspelled domains? DNS Hijacking or Bit Errors? Hostile redirects from innocuous hacked domains? I'm not against using access as evidence, but there needs to be more context than a single attempt to access a domain.